On 9/5/22 09:10, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:38:28PM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:03:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2022, Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:04:14AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2022, Maíra Canal <mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Maxime, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/1/22 09:55, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:42:10AM -0300, Maíra Canal wrote: >>>>>>>> With the introduction of KUnit, IGT is no longer the only option to run >>>>>>>> the DRM unit tests, as the tests can be run through kunit-tool or on >>>>>>>> real hardware with CONFIG_KUNIT. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore, remove the "igt_" prefix from the tests and replace it with >>>>>>>> the "test_drm_" prefix, making the tests' names independent from the tool >>>>>>>> used. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> v1 -> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20220830211603.191734-1-mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>>>> - Change "drm_" prefix to "test_drm_", as "drm_" can be a bit confusing (Jani Nikula). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I appreciate it's a bit of a bikeshed but I disagree with this. The >>>>>>> majority of the kunit tests already out there start with the framework >>>>>>> name, including *all* the examples in the kunit doc. Plus, it's fairly >>>>>>> obvious that it's a test, kunit is only about running tests in the first >>>>>>> place. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it be better to keep it as "drm_"? >>>>> >>>>> That's not "keeping". That's renaming igt to drm. >>>> >>>> Well, there's like half the tests that are prefixed with drm, the other >>>> with igt, so it's both really >>>> >>>>>> Currently, I don't think it is appropriate to hold the "igt_" prefix, as >>>>>> the tests are not IGT exclusive, but I don't have a strong opinion on >>>>>> using the "drm_" or the "test_drm" prefixes. >>>>> >>>>> I repeat my stance that "drm_" alone is confusing. >>>> >>>> What are you confusing it with? >>>> >>>>> For the reason alone that it pollutes the code tagging tools, mixing >>>>> actual drm_ types and functions with unit test functions. >>>> >>>> I don't get it, I'm sorry. All these functions are static and not part >>>> of any API, so I can't see how it would pollute a code tagging tool. Or >>>> at least, not more than any driver does. >>>> >>>> And we're part of a larger project here, it's about consistency with the >>>> rest of the ecosystem. >>> >>> Okay, so I'm just going to explain what I mean, but say "whatever" right >>> after and move on. >>> >>> For example, drm_buddy_test.c includes drm_buddy.h so with the igt_ -> >>> drm_ rename none of the test functions may clash with the drm_buddy_ >>> prefixed existing functions. Ditto for all tests similarly. >>> >>> For example drm_buddy_alloc_range() as a name sounds like something that >>> allocs a range, not something that tests range allocation. On the other >>> hand, you have drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() which is actually a real >>> drm_buddy function, not a test. What would you call a test that tests >>> that? Here, we end up with names that are all prefixed drm_buddy and you >>> won't know what's the actual function and what's the test unless you >>> look it up. >>> >>> I use code tagging that I can use for finding and completing >>> e.g. functions. Currently I have the following completions, for >>> igt_buddy_ and drm_buddy_, respectively: >>> >>> Possible completions are: >>> igt_buddy_alloc_limit igt_buddy_alloc_optimistic igt_buddy_alloc_pathological >>> igt_buddy_alloc_pessimistic igt_buddy_alloc_range igt_buddy_alloc_smoke >>> >>> Possible completions are: >>> drm_buddy_alloc_blocks drm_buddy_block drm_buddy_block_is_allocated drm_buddy_block_is_free >>> drm_buddy_block_is_split drm_buddy_block_offset drm_buddy_block_order drm_buddy_block_print >>> drm_buddy_block_size drm_buddy_block_state drm_buddy_block_trim drm_buddy_fini >>> drm_buddy_free_block drm_buddy_free_list drm_buddy_init drm_buddy_init_test >>> drm_buddy_module_exit drm_buddy_module_init drm_buddy_print >>> >>> With the patch at hand, they'll all be lumped under drm_buddy_ >>> completions, and some of them will be actual drm buddy functions and >>> some not. >>> >>> I just find it a very odd convention to name the tests in a way that's >>> indistinguishable from the real things. Even *within* drm_buddy_test.c >>> where you read the test code. Because currently you do have calls to >>> igt_buddy_ prefixed functions from other igt_buddy_ prefixed functions, >>> along with the drm_buddy_ prefixed calls. I think it's just going to be >>> a mess. >>> >>> /rant >>> >>> Whatever. Moving on. >> >> KUnit docs [1] state: >> https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-cases >> "As tests are themselves functions, their names cannot conflict with other >> C identifiers in the kernel. This may require some creative naming." >> And give examples of names. But this should be local to individual test suite - >> as long as the test is readable, and the name describes what it is testing, we >> should be fine. We don't even need to pass drm_* prefix, as this convention is >> expected for test suites, not test cases [2]. >> >> Having said that - I do believe that igt_* prefix don't belong here (which is >> why I'm progressively trying to get rid of in the patches that refactor some of >> the tests). >> I agree with Jani - can we take it on a case-by-case basis? >> If the test name is too similar to the function that it is testing, we could go >> with one of the following (taking igt_buddy_alloc_limit as example): >> drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit >> test_drm_buddy_alloc_limit >> buddy_test_alloc_limit >> test_buddy_alloc_limit > > We also have drm_test_buddy_alloc_limit, or drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit I will send a v3 with the "drm_test" prefix, as it seems we can get a bit more consensus with this one. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal > > Both would be fine for me, with a small preference for the former, which > should also address Jani's concerns? > >> And either of those is fine in my opinion (I'd personally go with >> test_buddy_alloc_limit in this case). >> We don't really need a DRM-wide (or worse, kernel wide) convention for test case >> names (it's only really needed for test suites). > > Sure we do. kunit.py can take some filters too. Being able to only run > DRM tests with a single filter is super convenient, and if we fail to > provide a consistent naming we're pretty much sure people running the > tests are going to miss some. > > Maxime
